MacDonald v. Moose, No. 11-7427 (4th Cir. March 12, 2013)
We herein use the term "anti-sodomy provision" to refer to the foregoing portion of section 18.2-361(A).2 As explained below, we are constrained to vacate the district court's judgment and remand for an award of habeas corpus relief on the ground that the anti-sodomy provision facially violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio says "This is an outrage and Public Advocate predicted this would happen when the Supreme Court struck down perversion as a criminal act. Americans must respond by defending their constitutionally passed laws and require their Congressmen and Senators to stand up to lawless criminal actions being embraced by an out of control liberal judiciary."

NBC TV News reports

A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the law against oral and anal sex violates the constitution's due process clause. The court based its decision on the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court striking down an anti-sodomy law in Texas.

In Virginia, William Scott MacDonald was convicted of criminal solicitation for allegedly ordering another person under age 18 to commit a felony. In his case, that felony was oral sex.

MacDonald argued that the criminal solicitation conviction was invalid because the underlying felony statute was unconstitutional. The appeals court majority agreed.